Author
Topic: Near Term Human Extinction (Read 48815 times)

We have opened pandoras box in 2015 and a myriad of feedbacks have spurred, these feedbacks ranging from wildfires to the present El-Nino which is poised to bring the temperature well beyond 1C (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/), and these bring about a lot of known unknowns about how the overall system will respond because, as we all know, the IPCC is overly conservative with their worst case scenarios constantly being pushed all the way towards the end of the century.

So, I thought I would bring a new element into the Climate Change debate that doesn't seem to get thrown around often and that is the theory of Near Term Human Extinction that is discussed by Guy McPherson. The most well known theory in this area is that humans will become extinct in 2030. However, it should be noted that Guy seems to move this date around a little, even going as far as to say that humans, aside from those in bunkers, won't live beyond a few months (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/), so it is a testament to how bad the current climate feedbacks can actually get.

Another element to also add is the idea of peak oil hitting us rather soon as shown by Gail Tverberg on "Our Finite World" who doesn't really talk about Climate Change a whole lot, but her ideas are very relevant to the near term because of the consequences of Peak Oil from Deflationary Collapse(http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/26/deflationary-collapse-ahead/). If we were to hit peak oil in the near term, that would rapidly cause the temperature to rise, on top of the El Nino and on top of the god knows how many other feedbacks there are out there which could cause earth's temperature to rise quite rapidly over an indeterminable period of time (some articles by Guy suppose 10C over a decadal timescale).

So with this thread, I thought I would bring about a debate on the prospect of near term extinction and whether it is actually possible for humans to become extinct by 2030, or if that should be pushed to a latter or even earlier time period.

If the limit is 3°C then there is no way that 2030 will see mass extinction across the globe, certainly if the drought going on south west of US will die, same for Sao paolo area, etc... but humans will prevail until we will reach that limit that is certainly around 2070-2100, earlier may be, I have no doubt at some point the elites will react, we will try to stop our emissions but feedback are kicking in so globally RCP8.5 seems pretty reasonable.

If the limit is 3°C then there is no way that 2030 will see mass extinction across the globe, certainly if the drought going on south west of US will die, same for Sao paolo area, etc... but humans will prevail until we will reach that limit that is certainly around 2070-2100, earlier may be, I have no doubt at some point the elites will react, we will try to stop our emissions but feedback are kicking in so globally RCP8.5 seems pretty reasonable.

Some places may remain livable...?

Isn't RCP8.5 supposed to be conservative though?

That last line is very hard to determine because we don't know the future as of yet and computer models have shown from time to time again that they are inaccurate so the future is extremely foggy and we can only place our trust in those who have their hand on their pulse, and although I was sceptical of Guy, I am now starting to realise that he is actually right and that human extinction will occur in the short term because of the temperature spikes from natural forgings, loss of aerosol after the death of industrial civilisation, and the release of Methane, not only from the Arctic, but also from the world's oceans as well. So honestly, it will be hard to quantify which area will be liveable, perhaps the far north and south will be liveable for a few years before climate mayhem reaches them, but other than that, I have no idea.

The following link leads to a thread about what scientists think about the risks of human extinction, and in general terms they discount the risks of human extinction due to climate change by 2030 (of course there is always some very long tail pdf risks):

Because of that foggyness, I won't say more. What I do know is that we won't be peaceful until we bring the CO2e back around 320ppm. It may take centuries or millenia but we have to do it, if we can't do it, the specie will be extinct along with many others.

Because of that foggyness, I won't say more. What I do know is that we won't be peaceful until we bring the CO2 back around 320ppm. It may take centuries or millenia but we have to do it, if we can't do it, the specie will be extinct along with many others.

I think we can all agree on that, the problem is just getting back to that. Peak oil seemed to do it, but there are consequences so the best that can be done is to invent technology that extracts carbon from the atmosphere, or invest A LOT more into re-forestation. In addition to this, bring about a controlled crash of civilisation, encouraging less births instead of allowing severe die-offs to take place, because nobody deserves to suffer that, not even the politicians who got us into this mess.

Honestly, when considering Guy's scenario, I don't understand why we continue to live the same way of life that is destructive to the planet when someone, despite criticism, has frequently gone out and listed the various consequences of our actions. Guy's words should spur action, not denial, it's like denying treatment for an illness when there is a high chance of that treatment being successful. I wouldn't expect the general public to rise to action because Guy is in the minority and his messages convey a sense of hopelessness, but our leaders should be taking his words into consideration and instead of blissfully denying, which gives the public reason to do the same, they should be taking action and trying to avert it whatever way they can because when it comes down to it, even their short term interests are threatened by Near Term extinction. So hopefully the general consensus of Guy's outlook turn out to be true and we can really turn this ship around, or at least create make-shift lifeboats of some sort, because the general public don't deserve to suffer the horrible world that Guy foresees, especially if people have seen this coming and decided to prepare and live a life in harmony with nature, very similar to what Guy is doing right now.

Another comment I wanted to add was something Wili brought up in the "What are you worried about" Thread, which was the fact that if civilisation cracks, we could experience .5 to 2C warming, that is pretty drastic and is something that Guy has talked about (it is the prime reason why he believes that humans will be nothing within a few months of civilisation crashing coupled with radiation from nuclear power plants and killer Climate Change).

Another side of this was posted by Malcolm Light on Arctic News. Now I know that people might see him as extreme, but I think it is important to throw an extreme prediction out there as it is relevant to the possibility of near term human extinction. Basically Malcolm believes that we will see a 6C warming by 2028 which is a little over a decade away. In a sense, this coupled with El Nino and loss of aerosols, could actually contribute to an overall trend of 10C warming from now (if civilisation crashed right now this very second) to 2028, a scary thought.

I'm not entirely sure if what we are facing is a general dieoff or an extinction, but one thing's certain, the future is not bright...

Only an crackpot would believe in 6K warming till 2028. But what am I saying, also only a crackpot would believe in extinction of the entire human race till 2030. My friend, get horror movies that do not falsely pretend factuality, there are good ones with better visual effects than a doomsday prophet who lost his marbles.

And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Logged

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Wouldn't human prospects be better because the temperature change is not as intense so it is easier for ecosystems to adapt, thus there is still habitat for humans, or would ecosystems need more than a century to adapt to 6C?

Wouldn't human prospects be better because the temperature change is not as intense so it is easier for ecosystems to adapt, thus there is still habitat for humans, or would ecosystems need more than a century to adapt to 6C?

Maybe desert ecosystems could handle that rate of change. Others not so much.

And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Wouldn't human prospects be better because the temperature change is not as intense so it is easier for ecosystems to adapt, thus there is still habitat for humans, or would ecosystems need more than a century to adapt to 6C?

How many extreme weather events does it take to kill a tree? How long does it take to grow a tree?

^c rise in temp by 2100 is the 'average' rise across the globe but we know that this does not really show the true impacts around the planet? What is the current rate of warming across the Arctic? How is relative humidity altering across the Poles? What would we expect of RH over the poles in a world 6c warmer ( on average) than today?

We are at 1c warming and already some areas are suffering the insults that a more extreme climate brings. Here in the UK we are amid another 'flood' winter. Cumbria put in flood defences to withstand a 1 in 200yr storm after the 2009 , '1 in a hundred year' ,flood event. 2 weeks ago they were trashed by a record rainfall event. Here in the Calder Valley we were mere cm's away from repeating our 2012 major flood event ( even though extensive 'extra' works were done on top of the flood alleviation schemes of the noughties that the 2012 floods over topped).

If we are already suffering from the increased load 1c places on the atmosphere then what the heck will 6 times that bring?

There is nothing 'slow' or gradual about a developing flood.

We have seen issues from continental summer High pressure systems and the heat domes they build. Record fire years across Siberia and Canada ( are we there yet in Ozz and western U.S.?) hint at what is to come should global temps continue to increase?

3 years ago stalactites in a permafrost cave showed us that 1.5c was as high as temps could be allowed to rise ( odd that Paris suddenly grabbed this number eh?) so why could 6c be 'do-able'?

I do not know climate as a 'gradual' thing, I witness it as stepped with plateaus. Each lurch raises the prospect of 'Black Swan Events' being forced into existence. Our permafrost lands appear to be one of the favourites to host such an event. Should we see 6c warming I fear we will have already seen major events from the north thst will only serve to compound our issues?

Logged

KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

Near term human extinction? I am very pessimistic but, depending on what you mean by near term, this is not a serious thread in my opinion. I actually believe there could be billions of deaths over the next 100 years but extinction?

Near term human extinction? I am very pessimistic but, depending on what you mean by near term, this is not a serious thread in my opinion. I actually believe there could be billions of deaths over the next 100 years but extinction?

It was mainly to put forward the idea that is posed by Guy McPherson mostly along with the idea of the feedback loops accelerating Climate Change further, resulting in the entire food chain unravelling, rendering the earth impossible for humans to inhabit for a long time.

And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Humans are extremely adaptive due to their intelligence, omnivores, and made for warm to hot climates. I cannot see any reasonable pathway for us to go extinct in the next millenia, given that there are billions of individuals. What 6K do in a century? Maybe change our civilization, far less probable, destroy it, let the population numbers dwindle, ok. But again, we have seen civilizations fall and completely disappear (e.g. the Maya). Did humans die out there? Certainly not.

And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Humans are extremely adaptive due to their intelligence, omnivores, and made for warm to hot climates. I cannot see any reasonable pathway for us to go extinct in the next millenia, given that there are billions of individuals. What 6K do in a century? Maybe change our civilization, far less probable, destroy it, let the population numbers dwindle, ok. But again, we have seen civilizations fall and completely disappear (e.g. the Maya). Did humans die out there? Certainly not.

Humans are adaptable, the things we need to eat aren't, and the Habitat that we need may not be there in the future

Humans are adaptable, the things we need to eat aren't, and the Habitat that we need may not be there in the future

All life forms are adaptable. The Atlantic Cod are moving north into the Arctic as I type.

I absolutely believe that we are heading to a temperature that is incompatible with human civilization. We are not simply heading towards this temperature. We are racing towards it. This civilization will collapse. Think of something like the collapse of the Mayan civilization, only planet wide. The earliest impact will be the death of billions with the wholesale abandonment of regions of the planet that have had human occupation for thousands of years. The ghost cities will stand as monuments to this civilization, not unlike the pyramids. The longer term impact will be the disconnection for the human species from our civilized past, a profound loss of culture and accumulated knowledge. Imagine something like the destruction of the royal libraries at Alexandria in 30BC but, again, on a planetary scale.

Despite my dismal view of our near term future, the human species will survive in niche environments all over the planet as far into the future as I can imagine.

Humans are adaptable, the things we need to eat aren't, and the Habitat that we need may not be there in the future

All life forms are adaptable. The Atlantic Cod are moving north into the Arctic as I type.

I absolutely believe that we are heading to a temperature that is incompatible with human civilization. We are not simply heading towards this temperature. We are racing towards it. This civilization will collapse. Think of something like the collapse of the Mayan civilization, only planet wide. The earliest impact will be the death of billions with the wholesale abandonment of regions of the planet that have had human occupation for thousands of years. The ghost cities will stand as monuments to this civilization, not unlike the pyramids. The longer term impact will be the disconnection for the human species from our civilized past, a profound loss of culture and accumulated knowledge. Imagine something like the destruction of the royal libraries at Alexandria in 30BC but, again, on a planetary scale.

Despite my dismal view of our near term future, the human species will survive in niche environments all over the planet as far into the future as I can imagine.

Would it even be possible for humans to live in these niches? It seems to me that the loss of global dimming in conjunction with spent fuel rods and methane blowout will kill everything barring microbes

NTHE is not backed up by anything i know. Sure there can be ugly feedbacks on the way, but humans can adapt to some degree, and there are negative feedbacks as well, and we still did not seriously embraced emissions reductions (even if you get that sense when reading the news on clean tech). As long most people fire up their fuel driven vehicles we unleash the dirty energy spigot.

The grain of truth with this alarm is that there are indeed processes (think large scale nuclear warfare) or years with extreme weather which renders farming impossible, thus have the potential to make any meaningful efforts to draw down emissions much much harder, and kill of many populations in turmoil.

NTHE is not backed up by anything i know. Sure there can be ugly feedbacks on the way, but humans can adapt to some degree, and there are negative feedbacks as well, and we still did not seriously embraced emissions reductions (even if you get that sense when reading the news on clean tech). As long most people fire up their fuel driven vehicles we unleash the dirty energy spigot.

The grain of truth with this alarm is that there are indeed processes (think large scale nuclear warfare) or years with extreme weather which renders farming impossible, thus have the potential to make any meaningful efforts to draw down emissions much much harder, and kill of many populations in turmoil.

Guy's point is that we will lose all of our habitat which will cause everyone to.die. think of it like what happens to yeast after alcohol is applied to it. The reasons for this are that to him, we have triggered a bunch of self reinforcing feedbacks, we see this with wildfires, el.nino, albedo loss, along with problems from civilisation collapse leading to global dimming loss, which can lead us to 2 or 3 degrees rapidly, and finally there is the issue of the spent fuel rods that will not be cooled after collapse as power for the back-up generators will eventually run out as no one will be putting more diesel into them.

When a lot of people are taking one side of the bet......it is usually best to take THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BET.

I'm not doing so JUST to be a "contrarian." I live in Atlanta, Georgia....which feels like "climate denial central"......and the home of Judith Curry (Georgia Tech).

Remember.....the US is the country with the greatest percentage of "denialists"......and the state of Georgia is pretty close to the top of the list of greatest percentage denialists in the US.

I happen to believe that the events of the current time (really the last 3 years or so.....and this coming year) are a "turning point". Events are going to be SO NOTICEABLE.....that more and more people are going to realize that global warming really IS A NASTY PROBLEM. We have seen the polls show that "movement" in the US over the past couple of years.....and I think that movement in the polls will continue as weather events continue to hammer the planet.

You're seeing a MUCH greater awareness of the planet by the younger generations (age 15 - 30). They seem to "get it".

What most people don't realize YET....is how much work there is to do over the coming decades TO CORRECT ALL THE CRAP WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.....and continue to do. THAT...is why I think we are getting closer to implementing change at an accelerated rate over the next 5 - 10 years (and it may have already started........it will be logarithmic......so we're at the beginning).

Further weather events.....whether they be huge snowfalls, floods, droughts, large Greenland ice melts, large Arctic ice sheet melts, etc.....are going to push humanity to change at an increasingly faster rate........and leave many politicians and one news channel in its wake.

The deniers (supported by fossil fuel companies) are running out of ammo......and they can get away with openly lying for so long. I think we are in that turning point.

I know that we have already "booked" some serious climate events FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS ALREADY.....and humanity WILL have to deal with those.

I happen to believe that we will. So I don't see the destruction of humanity in the next 30 years. I also don't bet on ISIS to be around for very long. An organization that advertises that they kill innocent people for a living will draw a "certain segment" of the population. But it won't EVER be a significant portion of the population. It reminds me that our press gives TOO MUCH ATTENTION to the 3% of climate scientists who don't view CO2 as a problem....and too little attention to the 97% who understand the issue with CO2.

Do we face SERIOUS ISSUES over the next 30 - 50 years (at least) that are "already baked in the cake"? ABSOLUTELY. There will continue to be issues with some populations having to move either because of drought, famine, rising sea levels, or other calamities caused by the mistakes mankind has already made.

Personally....I would like to see mankind understand that 9 - 10 billion people on this planet is NOT an option.....and SHOULDN'T be an option. THAT....is the 800 pound gorilla in the room (or at least ONE OF THEM).

There are a LOT of "good things" that have already started: (1) smaller houses, (2) awareness of healthier eating...and eating less meat (3) over consumption in general, etc. These are "small things" now.....but I never saw a BIG THING that didn't start out as a small thing.

There is a TON of work ahead. Hard work....difficult work. But there are too many smart people that see the work that has to be done.....and they won't let the politicians paper over it for much longer.

I can agree with about everything you wrote except this part is soooo wrong -- it is where I'm living that is 'climate denial central' -- Tucson, Palm Springs, LA, parts in between and to the north and east. I mean, can you top an Ivy League educated in-law driving a Tesla 100 S powered by a coal plant to a steak house after 18 holes of golf on irrigated desert?

La Brea tar pits ... a lot of animals large and small got stuck in the tar but it was primarily the largest animals that went extinct during the early Holocene (as in almost every mass extinction event): http://tinyurl.com/q944sp5 ). Dinosaurs didn't go extinct in the end-Cretaceous, just the ones too fat to fly.

This safe habitat in cislunar orbit -- what exactly is the urgency and who will it really house? My theory is the 0.001% are exploring options for waiting out coming the coming unpleasantries at a distance, letting the earth revive itself after the rabble are gone, and then returning. This was the plot anyway in a recent sci-fi movie (don't recall name) except that the elite's rocket blew up on launch.

Researchers for the first time [2010] have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.

The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that is currently available online and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."

When a lot of people are taking one side of the bet......it is usually best to take THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BET.

I'm not doing so JUST to be a "contrarian." I live in Atlanta, Georgia....which feels like "climate denial central"......and the home of Judith Curry (Georgia Tech).

Remember.....the US is the country with the greatest percentage of "denialists"......and the state of Georgia is pretty close to the top of the list of greatest percentage denialists in the US.

I happen to believe that the events of the current time (really the last 3 years or so.....and this coming year) are a "turning point". Events are going to be SO NOTICEABLE.....that more and more people are going to realize that global warming really IS A NASTY PROBLEM. We have seen the polls show that "movement" in the US over the past couple of years.....and I think that movement in the polls will continue as weather events continue to hammer the planet.

You're seeing a MUCH greater awareness of the planet by the younger generations (age 15 - 30). They seem to "get it".

What most people don't realize YET....is how much work there is to do over the coming decades TO CORRECT ALL THE CRAP WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.....and continue to do. THAT...is why I think we are getting closer to implementing change at an accelerated rate over the next 5 - 10 years (and it may have already started........it will be logarithmic......so we're at the beginning).

Further weather events.....whether they be huge snowfalls, floods, droughts, large Greenland ice melts, large Arctic ice sheet melts, etc.....are going to push humanity to change at an increasingly faster rate........and leave many politicians and one news channel in its wake.

The deniers (supported by fossil fuel companies) are running out of ammo......and they can get away with openly lying for so long. I think we are in that turning point.

I know that we have already "booked" some serious climate events FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS ALREADY.....and humanity WILL have to deal with those.

I happen to believe that we will. So I don't see the destruction of humanity in the next 30 years. I also don't bet on ISIS to be around for very long. An organization that advertises that they kill innocent people for a living will draw a "certain segment" of the population. But it won't EVER be a significant portion of the population. It reminds me that our press gives TOO MUCH ATTENTION to the 3% of climate scientists who don't view CO2 as a problem....and too little attention to the 97% who understand the issue with CO2.

Do we face SERIOUS ISSUES over the next 30 - 50 years (at least) that are "already baked in the cake"? ABSOLUTELY. There will continue to be issues with some populations having to move either because of drought, famine, rising sea levels, or other calamities caused by the mistakes mankind has already made.

Personally....I would like to see mankind understand that 9 - 10 billion people on this planet is NOT an option.....and SHOULDN'T be an option. THAT....is the 800 pound gorilla in the room (or at least ONE OF THEM).

There are a LOT of "good things" that have already started: (1) smaller houses, (2) awareness of healthier eating...and eating less meat (3) over consumption in general, etc. These are "small things" now.....but I never saw a BIG THING that didn't start out as a small thing.

There is a TON of work ahead. Hard work....difficult work. But there are too many smart people that see the work that has to be done.....and they won't let the politicians paper over it for much longer.

I see that people are becoming more aware of the impact of Climate Change. My worries, however, are that this knowledge may be worthless and that our actions will not change the future which is that all of our available habitat will be lost quite quickly (months to years) after the collapse of industrial civilisation.

I see that people are becoming more aware of the impact of Climate Change. My worries, however, are that this knowledge may be worthless and that our actions will not change the future which is that all of our available habitat will be lost quite quickly (months to years) after the collapse of industrial civilization.

I CERTAINLY understand your concern....and I HOPE you aren't right. In fact....it is VERY HEALTHY that we have folks like you who are EXTRAORDINARILY concerned. Your thinking will help to push others (perhaps like myself) to think about the possibility of that happening.

This loading of the atmosphere with CO2 is one ongoing science experiment that we still don't know the ending to (because it is a future event/process). And I do get both FRUSTRATRED and PO'd at politicians in the US (and in Atlanta/Georgia) who are more than willing to pass over or ignore a HUGE BODY OF EVIDENCE that tells us we need to act ASAP.

My belief....AND concern....deals with the next 5 - 10 years. During this time period....the Arctic will increasingly be more ice free (and I believe almost LITERALLY ice free)....for a longer period of time with each succeeding year. And we don't seem to really have a handle on what that impact will be. I suspect....that scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect in the SHORT TERM (5 - 20 years) of what that effect will be. Will that increasing amount of less ice/open dark ocean push temperatures up more quickly than we think....and provide more ammunition for the melting of the Greenland ice sheet (its neighbor).....and create much more melting than we think?

I suspect that the answers to those questions/thoughts will be YES. But I also believe that once the impacts are felt and seen by more and more people.....that relatively quick action will occur.

I understand that you "can't put hope in the bank".....so it a GOOD THING that folks (like you) are EXTRAORDINARLY concerned with the POSSIBLITY of near term extinction.

Humanity has such a LONG WAY TO GO on so many fronts. It is truly amazing to me. I view myself as someone of very AVERAGE intelligence.....and I look around at some supposedly intelligent people are saying and doing....and it amazes me. Maybe it points out the difference between INTELLIGENCE...and WISDOM (wisdom....people are able to USE the amount of intelligence THEY HAVE to make good decisions because they are UNBIASED...and look for the truth). Of course....especially in the US....having our political system so corrupted with money from lobbyists really throws a wrench in good policy making.

Again....I encourage EVERYONE IN THE US to VOTE in the upcoming elections come November 2016. And I encourage everyone to START talking with others about the importance of global warming because it effects EVERYTHING.

I see that people are becoming more aware of the impact of Climate Change. My worries, however, are that this knowledge may be worthless and that our actions will not change the future which is that all of our available habitat will be lost quite quickly (months to years) after the collapse of industrial civilization.

I CERTAINLY understand your concern....and I HOPE you aren't right. In fact....it is VERY HEALTHY that we have folks like you who are EXTRAORDINARILY concerned. Your thinking will help to push others (perhaps like myself) to think about the possibility of that happening.

This loading of the atmosphere with CO2 is one ongoing science experiment that we still don't know the ending to (because it is a future event/process). And I do get both FRUSTRATRED and PO'd at politicians in the US (and in Atlanta/Georgia) who are more than willing to pass over or ignore a HUGE BODY OF EVIDENCE that tells us we need to act ASAP.

My belief....AND concern....deals with the next 5 - 10 years. During this time period....the Arctic will increasingly be more ice free (and I believe almost LITERALLY ice free)....for a longer period of time with each succeeding year. And we don't seem to really have a handle on what that impact will be. I suspect....that scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect in the SHORT TERM (5 - 20 years) of what that effect will be. Will that increasing amount of less ice/open dark ocean push temperatures up more quickly than we think....and provide more ammunition for the melting of the Greenland ice sheet (its neighbor).....and create much more melting than we think?

I suspect that the answers to those questions/thoughts will be YES. But I also believe that once the impacts are felt and seen by more and more people.....that relatively quick action will occur.

I understand that you "can't put hope in the bank".....so it a GOOD THING that folks (like you) are EXTRAORDINARLY concerned with the POSSIBLITY of near term extinction.

Humanity has such a LONG WAY TO GO on so many fronts. It is truly amazing to me. I view myself as someone of very AVERAGE intelligence.....and I look around at some supposedly intelligent people are saying and doing....and it amazes me. Maybe it points out the difference between INTELLIGENCE...and WISDOM (wisdom....people are able to USE the amount of intelligence THEY HAVE to make good decisions because they are UNBIASED...and look for the truth). Of course....especially in the US....having our political system so corrupted with money from lobbyists really throws a wrench in good policy making.

Again....I encourage EVERYONE IN THE US to VOTE in the upcoming elections come November 2016. And I encourage everyone to START talking with others about the importance of global warming because it effects EVERYTHING.

Thanks, I just wish these concerns manifested decades ago, then our species would be able to stay alive. Now though, I don't know if there is any reason for optimism because we are looking at some pretty radical changes in the climate already and it feels like society is mere seconds from collapse every day, like the lights will go out in the blink of an eye, and then suddenly cannibalism takes hold for a few weeks until the last human has kicked the bucket as global dimming is lost. To me, all hope for the future is lost and 2016 will show us one final lesson as to why this is the case.

This is especially frightening with Guy's Miami Presentation where he states that we could hit 4C quickly after society collapses:

and just because some "Guy" says that, you want to believe it? Come on, the human brain can do better than doomsday babble and world's end phantasies.

Except what he says is reasonably true in terms of global dimming as the following article, (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html) states, a study carried out notes that there was a temperature spike of 1.8 degrees following the cessation of air traffic following 9/11. Now, if American planes alone can increase the temperature that drastically, how bad can the cessation of ALL industrial activity be for the temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that we will hit 4C instantly which is extinction, especially with how abrupt the rise is.

I am aware of the conflict within the linked article, but that cannot be counted on for reasons discussed by the article itself as the second study that indicates that the first study was incorrect, only analysed naturally occurring clouds, and not contrails. In addition to this, although literature does not say that Guy's drastic temperature increase could occur, climate change literature tends to be extremely conservative, so they can't be counted on either.

and just because some "Guy" says that, you want to believe it? Come on, the human brain can do better than doomsday babble and world's end phantasies.

Except what he says is reasonably true in terms of global dimming as the following article, (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html) states, a study carried out notes that there was a temperature spike of 1.8 degrees following the cessation of air traffic following 9/11. Now, if American planes alone can increase the temperature that drastically, how bad can the cessation of ALL industrial activity be for the temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that we will hit 4C instantly which is extinction, especially with how abrupt the rise is.

I am aware of the conflict within the linked article, but that cannot be counted on for reasons discussed by the article itself as the second study that indicates that the first study was incorrect, only analysed naturally occurring clouds, and not contrails. In addition to this, although literature does not say that Guy's drastic temperature increase could occur, climate change literature tends to be extremely conservative, so they can't be counted on either.

Jessas, please at least read texts without just trying to confirm what you think: The article says that the "diurnal range" increased by 1.8K, which is the difference between nighttime and daytime temperatures. That is nothing like a temperature spike, just taking out the dimming effect during daylight and the warming effect during the night. Also, probably a bit larger than expected from better data. If you want to see the dimming in a proper graphics, look e.g. at the GISS forcings:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

That is approximately as aggressive as you can reasonably go with the Aerosol effect, and as you also see, negative albedo effects (soot/black carbon) are pretty significant as well.Very roughly estimated, the aerosols have masked around 0.4K or so of warming, an order of magnitude less than your "Guy" claims.If you want to see it from another angle: We know pretty well that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is around 3K (Paleodata without aerosols, etc.). That does not leave a lot of space for catastrophic warming when we cease emissions.

magnamentis

well spoken, the doomsday talk appears to me exactly as annoying and counter productive like all the denialist babble, just the other side of the same medal it's like with religions, all extreme stances are usually ego related and damaging to the cause, cause as to the best possible, based on facts and ethical motives. the doomsday babblers deliver the perfect ammunition for the denialists because it's quite easy to doubt and deny doomsday scenarios. thank you for this because it's not easy to get through with such an approach for above mentioned reasons. one gets dangerously provoking feedback at times LOL.

This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.

This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.

Would that still be the case in terms of rapid climate change? I can understand the point that we would still have habitat if we had let's say, slower methane release or less climate feedbacks that are rapid (i.e human aerosol reduction from societal collapse), but from what I can see, we are about to enter a period where the change will be rapid, and ecosystems wont be able to adapt fast enough to provide habitat for humans to either farm (due to increased weather volatility), or hunt (due to animals becoming extinct).

This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.

I'm going to revive this thread with my thoughts as they have not been previously presented in this manner.

This is going to be a long post, so I'll break it into numbers to make it more easily digestible.

1. In my opinion, the problem is that climate change is going to occur on a rapid scale and civilization will collapse in a sudden, and catastrophic fashion. Climate change is already occurring faster than any other point - the only close analog to what's currently taking place was Permian mass extinction. I've seen the 4C number thrown around so let's talk about that.

2. IMO - A 4-6C world would is something that Dr. McPherson represents as a realistic possibility once the methane clathrate gun is fully triggered, combined with increased water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas), AND the removal of global dimming. This sudden rise in temperature from current 1.5C above preindustrial levels to 4-6C within a decade would, in my opinion, represent the death of almost all humans on this plane. So, in my view that's probably (just a guess using my imagination) an immediate death of 5 billion dead humans within a year or two, and the "consequences" of such a die off all over the world. These consequences include pollution and nuclear radiation (I'll talk about that later). The other 2.6 billion would probably die off more slowly (over a couple of years), but it's hard to imagine how they're going to feed themselves other than eating other dead apes and canned goods in stores etc that are still around.

3. if Dr. McPherson is right, then we could experience an abrupt increase in global average temperature from around 1.5C currently, to something like 4-6C in a very short period of time. Civilization will not be able to cope. It can barely cope at 1.5C, all countries on earth are severely in debt and there's no known method for alleviating this debt other than inflating the currency away - that alone could bring civilization to its knees, regardless of climate change.

4. As a consequence of the collapse of civilization in a rapid fashion (years) all the coal power plants will stop functioning because apes will be starving to death around the world all at the same time. If coal power plants stop functioning, aerosols will drop out of the atmosphere and within a couple of months, global average temperature will increase ANOTHER .5-3C. Guy refers to this as the reversal of global dimming, and when global dimming goes away the full brunt of climate change will suddenly rear its head.

5. Anything in the range of 3-6C within 10 years would be unimaginably catastrophic to every single form of life on this planet. The higher the temperature, the more catastrophic.

6. There would be no coral reefs left, and the base of all foodchains on the planet would die.

7. **A major issue is this**: As I indicated, one of the consequences of a full scale collapse of civilization is the melt down of spent fuel rods stored at every nuclear power plant on earth. These plants have fuel rods that require a constant supply of electricity to prevent catastrophic melt downs, similar to fukishima.

Its a distinct possibility that the northern hemisphere will be full of radioactive material being emitted out of melted down spent fuel rod containment facilities that ran out of power to circulate cold water over the rods.

8. These rods NEED cold water for 10+ years to prevent catastrophic melt downs- the material once removed from the reactor facility, maintains a very high temperature for a long period of time. This is why fukishima melted down - the spent fuel rod facilities lost power, and the spent fuel rods overheated because water was not being passed over them any longer. The spent fuel rods also weigh TONS, and require careful and orchestrated planning to move. It's not something that can be organized in a month or two - this takes years of planning, and there's 450 nuclear power plants all over the planet, most of which are in the northern hemisphere. I don't know how many hundreds of tons of spent fuel rods exist on this planet, but I do know that they all require 10+ years of constant electricity supply to prevent them from melting down after they've been removed from the reactor facility.

9. So if you folks plan on surviving, you'll have to be in the southern hemisphere, and somewhere that gets reliable precipitation for growing crops to feed your livestock and grow some sort of crops.

At best, I can't imagine more than a few million humans surviving in a 6C above baseline world. Maybe you're already living in New Zealand with the rest of the billionaires with bunkers - they will be the last surviving humans on this planet.

I'd suggest getting a new Zealand residency, with a reliable form of transportation to go wherever is livable once this all starts to accelerate.

10. In conclusion, the principle point of focus needs to be the arctic. Once the methane clathrates begin to melt and enter the atmosphere, it's game over for civilization. An ice free arctic could release these methane clathrates and permafrost methane/CO2 within a VERY short period of time. No one knows for sure, but it's sort of like poking a stick at a land mine buried in the sand - no one knows which poke will set off the detonation, but if you keep poking it at some point it's going to blow up. Once the arctic time bomb, so to speak is released, positive feedback loops of epic proportions will occur all over the earth simultaneously for the foreseeable future.

The second principle point of focus needs to be nuclear reactors and spent fuel rods. If nothing is done, and civilization collapses quickly due to exponential climate change, there's going to be hundreds of Fukishima-like events( but of much greater magnitudes) occurring simultaneously all over the planet.

I'm not sure what you've been reading and who this Guy is, but what you describe are processes that take decades, not months and years. Climate doesn't jump from 1.5 to 3.0 degrees in one year just because Guy said so. Sorry.

I'm going to revive this thread with my thoughts as they have not been previously presented in this manner.

In my opinion, the problem is that climate change is going to occur on a rapid scale and civilization will collapse in a sudden, and catastrophic fashion. Climate change is already occurring faster than any other point - the only close analog to what's currently taking place was Permian mass extinction. I've seen the 4C number thrown around so let's talk about that.

IMO - A 4C world would represent the death of almost all humans on this planet, that's probably (just a guess using my imagination) an immediate death of 5 billion dead humans within a year or two, and their consequences all over the world. These consequences include pollution and nuclear radiation. The other 2.6 billion would probably die off more slowly (over a couple of years), but it's hard to imagine how they're going to feed themselves other than eating other dead apes and canned goods in stores etc that are still around.

If Guy is right, then we could experience an abrupt increase in global average temperature from around 1.5C currently, to something like 3C in a very short period of time. Civilization will not be able to cope. It can barely cope at 1.5C, all countries on earth are severely in debt and there's no known method for alleviating this debt other than inflating the currency away - that alone could bring civilization to its knees, regardless of climate change.

As a consequence of the collapse of civilization in a rapid fashion (years) all the coal power plants will stop functioning because apes will be starving to death around the world all at the same time. If coal power plants stop functioning, aerosols will drop out of the atmosphere and within a couple of months, global average temperature will increase ANOTHER .5-3C. Guy refers to this as the reversal of global dimming, and when global dimming goes away the full brunt of climate change will suddenly rear its head.

Anything in the range of 3-6C within 10 years would be unimaginably catastrophic to every single form of life on this planet. The higher the temperature, the more catastrophic.

There would be no coral reefs left, and the base of all foodchains on the planet would die.

The major issue is this: As I indicated, one of the consequences of a full scale collapse of civilization is the melt down of spent fuel rods stored at every nuclear power plant on earth. These plants have fuel rods that require a constant supply of electricity to prevent catastrophic melt downs, similar to fukishima.

Its a distinct possibility that the northern hemisphere will be full of radioactive material being emitted out of melted down spent fuel rod containment facilities that ran out of power to circulate cold water over the rods.

These rods NEED cold water for 10+ years to prevent catastrophic melt downs- the material once removed from the reactor facility, maintains a very high temperature for a long period of time. This is why fukishima melted down - the spent fuel rod facilities lost power, and the spent fuel rods overheated because water was not being passed over them any longer. The spent fuel rods also weigh TONS, and require careful and orchestrated planning to move. It's not something that can be organized in a month or two - this takes years of planning, and there's 450 nuclear power plants all over the planet, most of which are in the northern hemisphere. I don't know how many hundreds of tons of spent fuel rods exist on this planet, but I do know that they all require 10+ years of constant electricity supply to prevent them from melting down after they've been removed from the reactor facility.

So if you folks plan on surviving, you'll have to be in the southern hemisphere, and somewhere that gets reliable precipitation for growing crops to feed your livestock and grow some sort of crops.

At best, I can't imagine more than a few million humans surviving in a 6C above baseline world. Maybe you're already living in New Zealand with the rest of the billionaires with bunkers - they will be the last surviving humans on this planet.

I'd suggest getting a new Zealand residency, with a reliable form of transportation to go wherever is livable once this all starts to accelerate.

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

I'm not sure what you've been reading and who this Guy is, but what you describe are processes that take decades, not months and years. Climate doesn't jump from 1.5 to 3.0 degrees in one year just because Guy said so. Sorry.

I think 1.5C in one year is dramatic however, in 2015, temperatures *did* indeed jump about a full degree C over the course of a year...

Clearly, if events like 2015-2016 can occur, worse is possible.

I would imagine a 1.5C increase is indeed plausible if a super-Nino were to coincide with a major global economic depression. The super Nino provides the baseline response, the depression would reduce aerosols substantially and aggravate it further.

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future. No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically.

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1. How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?2. How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

We are roughly about 1.5 C warmer than 1750 baseline, and i see us hitting 2 within the next few years. Everything we see now is just the start. I want to say I will be around in 10 years...... idk tho

The billionaires will be some of the first to go. Knowing how to make money in the futures market is not a transferable skill. The people most likely to survive currently live in cultures that still are close to nature, growing their own foodstuffs. Think high elevation dwellers in Ecuador and Peru, growing potatoes and raising grazing animals. And those billionaires should not expect to be treated kindly by the native cultures.

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future. No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically.

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1. How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?2. How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.

If order broke down in the Northern Hemisphere, barring nuclear conflict, human civilization would continue in a substantially reduced functionality a la Rome post-400AD.

There would likely be mass chaos (think Syria, but everywhere). However, this would be a function of late-stage capitalism failing to relinquish control. Given this, it seems that it would come alongside continued faith in currency, however tenuous.

We could see the evolution of a society where portions of critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants) are managed by vast multi-national corporations while civic obligations are left unmet by puppet governments which only exist to prevent chaos worse than whatever is already on the way. We are kind of approaching this point already.

In that case, it would be unlikely that nuclear power plants would degrade to the point of meltdowns. The global elite would not be thrilled confined to the islands of New Zealand, and while I'm sure it's still an option, there are solutions that allow depopulation and maintenance/drawdown of some critical infrastructure. Remember that apes have a thing for currency, and currency is a product of upbringing/education -- as long as education continues, society will keep functioning to some degree.

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future. No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically.

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1. How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?2. How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.

If order broke down in the Northern Hemisphere, barring nuclear conflict, human civilization would continue in a substantially reduced functionality a la Rome post-400AD.

There would likely be mass chaos (think Syria, but everywhere). However, this would be a function of late-stage capitalism failing to relinquish control. Given this, it seems that it would come alongside continued faith in currency, however tenuous.

We could see the evolution of a society where portions of critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants) are managed by vast multi-national corporations while civic obligations are left unmet by puppet governments which only exist to prevent chaos worse than whatever is already on the way. We are kind of approaching this point already.

In that case, it would be unlikely that nuclear power plants would degrade to the point of meltdowns. The global elite would not be thrilled confined to the islands of New Zealand, and while I'm sure it's still an option, there are solutions that allow depopulation and maintenance/drawdown of some critical infrastructure. Remember that apes have a thing for currency, and currency is a product of upbringing/education -- as long as education continues, society will keep functioning to some degree.

No body knows what the future will bring, but in a world that is 4-6C above pre industrial baseline within the next approximately 10 years, it's difficult to imagine a situation where none of the 450+ nuclear reactors have spent fuel rods that catastrophically melt down. Even just a single power spent fuel rod facility in a place like Iran, India, Russia, or United Arab Emirates (etc) melting down is enough to cause an event that is substantially more potent than Fukishima.

Imagine a Fukishima like situation that does not end, nuclear radiation continues to spew out of the melted down spent fuel rod containment facility. The more radiation that spews out, it becomes more and more impossible to send humans to the site to repair the damage because they'd all die rather quickly. In Japan, robots were unable to access the facility where spent fuel rods melted down. And that was in one of the richest, and most technologically advanced country on earth. Not only that but ALL other countries on earth rushed to help Japan - it was a global effort, and that was just a single spent fuel rod containment facility. All it did was lose power. Nothing else - Fukishima was caused by a power failure of the water pumps that keep the spent fuel rods cool.

There are facilities like that in Countries like Brazil, or Romania (and numerous other countries of similar status) who simply do not possess the means of combatting a catastrophic failure.

In a world that warms to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 years, I find it difficult to imagine this scenario not playing out in some of the more unstable regions of the planet that have very large nuclear facilities with less than ideal methods for storing spent fuel rods. Spent fuel rods are the problem, they weigh many tons, and cannot be transported out of these facilities without EXTENSIVE planning.

Most (if not all of them - I don't honestly know if the exact information is available to civilians) countries just have them in these spent fuel rod containment facilities, sitting there in cooling baths for 10+ years - if at any point the power is lost for a period of time, the spent fuel rods WILL melt down catastrophically in a fukishima like event. They all have generators with plenty of fuel, but what happens if the fuel runs out ? No one knows how long the fuel tanks last, but it's probably not longer than a couple of days, maybe a week?

As I mentioned in my previous post, relevant questions include:

1). How will the radiation spread throughout the globe from one or more catastrophic melt downs of spent fuel rod containment facilities? 2). How will this radiation affect the atmosphere?

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future. No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically.

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1. How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?2. How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.

If order broke down in the Northern Hemisphere, barring nuclear conflict, human civilization would continue in a substantially reduced functionality a la Rome post-400AD.

There would likely be mass chaos (think Syria, but everywhere). However, this would be a function of late-stage capitalism failing to relinquish control. Given this, it seems that it would come alongside continued faith in currency, however tenuous.

We could see the evolution of a society where portions of critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants) are managed by vast multi-national corporations while civic obligations are left unmet by puppet governments which only exist to prevent chaos worse than whatever is already on the way. We are kind of approaching this point already.

In that case, it would be unlikely that nuclear power plants would degrade to the point of meltdowns. The global elite would not be thrilled confined to the islands of New Zealand, and while I'm sure it's still an option, there are solutions that allow depopulation and maintenance/drawdown of some critical infrastructure. Remember that apes have a thing for currency, and currency is a product of upbringing/education -- as long as education continues, society will keep functioning to some degree.

No body knows what the future will bring, but in a world that is 4-6C above pre industrial baseline within the next approximately 10 years, it's difficult to imagine a situation where none of the 450+ nuclear reactors have spent fuel rods that catastrophically melt down. Even just a single power spent fuel rod facility in a place like Iran, India, Russia, or United Arab Emirates (etc) melting down is enough to cause an event that is substantially more potent than Fukishima.

Imagine a Fukishima like situation that does not end, nuclear radiation continues to spew out of the melted down spent fuel rod containment facility. The more radiation that spews out, it becomes more and more impossible to send humans to the site to repair the damage because they'd all die rather quickly. In Japan, robots were unable to access the facility where spent fuel rods melted down. And that was in one of the richest, and most technologically advanced country on earth. Not only that but ALL other countries on earth rushed to help Japan - it was a global effort, and that was just a single spent fuel rod containment facility. All it did was lose power. Nothing else - Fukishima was caused by a power failure of the water pumps that keep the spent fuel rods cool.

There are facilities like that in Countries like Brazil, or Romania (and numerous other countries of similar status) who simply do not possess the means of combatting a catastrophic failure.

In a world that warms to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 years, I find it difficult to imagine this scenario not playing out in some of the more unstable regions of the planet that have very large nuclear facilities with less than ideal methods for storing spent fuel rods. Spent fuel rods are the problem, they weigh many tons, and cannot be transported out of these facilities without EXTENSIVE planning.

Most (if not all of them - I don't honestly know if the exact information is available to civilians) countries just have them in these spent fuel rod containment facilities, sitting there in cooling baths for 10+ years - if at any point the power is lost for a period of time, the spent fuel rods WILL melt down catastrophically in a fukishima like event. They all have generators with plenty of fuel, but what happens if the fuel runs out ? No one knows how long the fuel tanks last, but it's probably not longer than a couple of days, maybe a week?

As I mentioned in my previous post, relevant questions include:

1). How will the radiation spread throughout the globe from one or more catastrophic melt downs of spent fuel rod containment facilities? 2). How will this radiation affect the atmosphere?

What you suggest is possible however I believe it is extremely unlikely. In fact, I believe part of the reason behind the global push for nuclear power has been its effect as an additional deterrent against MAD -- i.e., the prospect of a devastated US or Russia's nuclear power plants melting down *after* any substantial conflict would be sufficient to render it pointless beyond the impact of mere shockwaves and ordinary fallout.

If this is the case, it suggests that humans are more connected than ever, with elites working in concert across most every nation towards policies that maintain the status quo.

That is also why multi-national corporations are becoming increasingly prominent and will continue to do so. With ample private mercenary forces and events like Chernobyl and Fukushima verifying how terrible nuclear accidents can become, I do not think it is likely that a decay in civilization will get to the point where the massive sums of resources currently hoarded away are insufficient to prevent the security of infrastructure that is critical on a planetary level.

It is definitely possible, but imagining a world without the current government of the United States or France probably makes the rise of a supra-national corporate power like Blackwater substantially more plausible.

And with an ample supply of humanity, there is no reason that residual benefits of the current accumulation of wealth will not result in enough capital that security forces cannot be deployed to specific locations en-masse (thousands to tens of thousands). I think that the preference of the global rich to *not* be stuck on New Zealand outweighs any hesitance towards spending $ on legions of mercenaries and whatever would remain of national militaries.

In a world that warms to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 years, I find it difficult to imagine this scenario not playing out in some of the more unstable regions of the planet that have very large nuclear facilities with less than ideal methods for storing spent fuel rods.

While you are theoretically right, the world will not warm to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 or 20 years. Large systems have built in lags (such as the thermal capacity of the oceans and of the ice sheets), and such timescales are simply not possible. Since most of your theory is based on the speed of temperature changes, it is fatally flawed.

If atmospheric temperature suddenly jumped up 5 or so degrees C for whatever reason, how long would it take the oceans etc to absorb the better part of that heat? Not instantaneously, I presume.

Logged

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

If atmospheric temperature suddenly jumped up 5 or so degrees C for whatever reason, how long would it take the oceans etc to absorb the better part of that heat? Not instantaneously, I presume.

What would be the cause of a 5 to 6 degree temperature rise in the next 10 years ? Without a plausible scenario, slow human extinction is more likely as temperature increase accelerates due to melting permafrost on land and sea and degradation of carbon sinks. So 50 years , not 10. I will be dead and buried by then, (as will Trump, Pruitt etc).

Logged

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!""And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

As I understand it, geront, the people that are claiming such things assume that aerosols are blocking much more insolation than most models admit so that removing them suddenly (as may happen at least partially in a major global economic crash) would lead to a pretty immediate jump in global (atmospheric) temps of about 2 C. Another assumption is that such a sudden and drastic jump would rapidly trigger major and rapid carbon feedbacks of various sorts (tundra, other soils, massive wild fires...)

It all seems to me like too many assumptions that everything will always happen at or beyond the high end of the catastrophically bad side of the best current predictions...

but on the other hand that has pretty much been the trend recently

Logged

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."